Dear “Safe”:

The report you have cited claiming increases in pesticide use, “http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/genetically-engineered-crops-pesticide-use.html “, was paid for by the anti-GM Union of Concerned Scientists, and was written by Chuck Benbrook, who serves as the Organic Center’s Chief scientist (http://www.organic-center.org/about.staff.php). Benbrook’s claims have been widely shown to be misleading (eg., www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810). For example, although there have been some small increases in soybeans in some cases, these have been because glyphosate is a less potent herbicide replacing others of greater persistence and toxicity to non-target species and humans.

Dear Bush:
Do you make a living out of farming? Until you do, I don’t think you can lecture the rest of us on “regenerative” and polyculture systems. Ag is trying to be regenerative now (limited by costs) and there is a reason why polyculture is not more widely practiced; it is less efficient and the public (through the large food chains) is not willing to pay what it costs.

Have you travelled in Africa where the food problems are most acute? You are right; the food problem is currently one of distribution, but what a problem distribution is! The distribution systems in Africa are so poor that it is hard to even distribute malaria medicines and bed nets, much less tonnes of food! And there is the importance of self-sufficiency to self-esteem. People need to be able to produce their own food, and on less land and with less environmental impact. GM is already delivering that in South Africa, and could do more in the rest of Africa, but is currently inhibited by lobbying by NGOs and market threats.

I was trained as an entomologist. If you think that “there are no other sources of food (weeds) as they have been spryed into oblivion..... eliminated”, you need to come to North America and see the reality. The primary source of non-pest insects like butterflies has always been field margins, and the “weeds” and insects are still abundant there.

That Greenpeace may have increased its donations by 18% is only a measure of the success of its fund raising campaigns.

Dear All:

I am struck by how this debate has paralleled the recent controversy over “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. Just as with the safety and value of GM crops, the vast majority of scientists who work in disciplines related to Climate Change accept the overwhelming data that Climate Change is being driven by humans. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and despite having their errors publicly exposed, climate change deniers continue to make their claims (eg., that it is the sun!) and inexplicably continue to receive support in government circles (Sen Nick Minchin has apparently argued in support of “Swindle”).

Similarly, despite repeated corrections on the facts by people like Agronomist, Bugsy and myself, Julie “non-GM Farmer” Newman continues to make claims that are simply false if not fanciful, and yet has enjoyed a favourable reception from Kim Chance, the original focus of this thread.

The producers of “Swindle” claim that the proponents of climate change make money from it. Should we be surprised that the GM deniers on this website make the same claims about those who have the temerity to support GM? But as we have learned about “Swindle”, people really making money off the controversy are the producers of the “Swindle”! And here we see claims that Greenpeace’s revenues have increased 18%!

The facts are that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the registered GM crops are at least as safe for humans as conventionally or organically grown crops, and safer for the environment. It is also abundantly evident that farmers are making more money by growing these crops, as illustrated by their rapid international adoption by some 8.5 million farmers. People who don’t want to eat GM will be able to access organic, because only a few large area crops are even being targeted for GM and segregation systems are already practiced for organic. Essentially this is an argument over whether the vast majority of farmers should work as serfs, accepting less income and greater health and environmental risks, for a small minority of the population.

Democracy demands otherwise.

Rick

Since we are on the issue of "conflicts of interest", perhaps some posters are unaware of the following:

Ian Edwards worked for Pioneer Hi-Bred for 22 years. Pioneer Hi-Bred is a company owned by Dupont which has many patents for GM seeds.

One could not be blamed for perceiving this long-term affiliaton to have the potential for Dr Edwards to have a vested interest? Therefore, if there is no conflict of interest, shouldn't the author, when writing articles to influence his readers, add a disclaimer as a footnote?

Dickie, and I once worked for the US Government, but I don't see how that is relevant. You seem to live in a strange world where people don't move on when they change employers and continue to follow the instructions of their previous employers. Is this something that you do?

While DuPont has GM patents, it has no commercial GM crops - yet. Likewise, US Universities hold a vast number of GM patents and I am sure Australian Universities do to. This is because Universities is where a lot of the early research was done.

This type of attack is the last resort of those bereft of arguments. It shouldn't matter whether Ian Edwards or anybody else once worked for Y company or not. If their statements are wrong you should be able to point out where the statements are wrong and provide the support for that view.

Dear Dickie:

In reply to one of your earlier messages, I began studying and then working in agriculture after reading Rachel Carson’s "Silent Spring”. Carson’s literature review shows that all of the harms from organochlorines were detected and described within 7 years of their widespread use, published by 1957. We are now into 11 years of GM use, and with 50 years of advances in risk detection, with no problems.

“How long will organics remain organic?" As long as you and like minded people are willing to continue to pay a premium price for current production and segragation practices. Few crops are even being targeted for GM. How will GM canola, for example, affect what you eat? Apples, broccoli, organic beef, etc?

This is an unnecessary beat up of organic ag on GM, and one that is not being reciprocated. There is no reason for organic to be affected.

The Institute of Science in Society has no scientific reputation. Even before ISIS, their leader, Mae-Wan Ho, was known only for her weird ideas denying Darwinian theories of evolution. These people are in the same class as a few scientists who deny that HIV causes AIDS.

On the subject of conflicts of interest, if you really want everything above board, how about if you ask GM opponents to offer transparency on their funding? Where does GeneEthics get its funds? Jeffrey Smith earns money off his “best selling” books attacking GM, and if you think that it is worthwhile trumpeting Ian Edwards’ history, is it any less relevant that Smith has been a member of the Natural Law Party, the political arm of the Maharishi movement, which is opposed to GM.

Dear All:
I see that Julie (“non-GM”) Newman has confirmed that she has little regard for biodiversity (or toxicology), declaring that “More feminine looking male frogs eh?! You are really dragging the bottom of the barrel…” (July 6). (BTW, the scientific paper claims that the frogs are really messed up.) Given Julie’s alliance with Greenpeace on GM, what strange bedfellows politics makes!

Rick

Agronomist

You allude to my query over a potential conflict of interest on Ian Edwards part, as being "the last resort of those bereft of arguments."

However, I have already presented my argument on the advent of GM crops.

I'm sure you will agree that the claim from a pro-GM poster, that Greenpeace's revenue has increased by 18% since they commenced an anti-GM stance, is quite ridiculous given that increase, over a minimum period of some 10 years, would be considered peanuts and therefore holds no relevance at all on the issue of GM crops.